Re: Lack of evidence does not constitute proof of nonexistence
- From: Matt Giwer <jull43@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 11:20:39 GMT
Doug Weller wrote:
Of course it doesn't Lack of evidence isn't proof, but it can be pretty good evidence of absence, depending upon the context. It is, I agree, very hard to prove the absolute non-existence of something. Few people would try.
In context Israel is the most dug area in the world and without finding evidence of a kingdom that ruled from the Nile to the Euphrates bible stories have a problem.
When in fact everything found is nothing to write home about unless writing to believers and puffing it all out of proportion as hope everything not found really might exist it is hardly of interest to anyone but those who hope when all hope is gone.
-- The US would be more like Israel if when the assassination of JFK was memorialized, 20% of the country would celebrate Oswald. -- The Iron Webmaster, 3537 nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml http://www.giwersworld.org Larry Shiff http://www.giwersworld.org/computers/newsagent.phtml a8 .
- References:
- Lack of evidence does not constitute proof of nonexistence
- From: Steve Franklin
- Re: Lack of evidence does not constitute proof of nonexistence
- From: Bobby D. Bryant
- Re: Lack of evidence does not constitute proof of nonexistence
- From: Doug Weller
- Lack of evidence does not constitute proof of nonexistence
- Prev by Date: Re: Lack of evidence does not constitute proof of nonexistence
- Next by Date: Re: Jews Triggered Athens Democracy?
- Previous by thread: Re: Lack of evidence does not constitute proof of nonexistence
- Next by thread: Re: Lack of evidence does not constitute proof of nonexistence
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|